Talk:Creation science/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Must repeat dispute of article objectivity...

I must repeat my objection that this article is very obviously biased. No matter how stupid or wrong the author of the article may thing creationism is (and it is obvious that he does), this is an encyclopedia article, not a place for his/her personal rant against creationism.

--EthanSudman 04:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Check the edit history of this article. There is no single author. Several authors have differing POVs. Could you please point out which points you object to, so we can address them. Otherwise, the POV notice will surely be removed. -- Ec5618 05:53, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Arguement of Philosophy v. Philosophy

I'm not sure if this is the best page for this, but its a common arguement I've been hearing a lot lately. Its a well known fact that creation v. evolution debates are often potrayed as Science v. Belief(or Religion) but this argument by Creationists suggests it to be Philosophy v. Philosophy and that very few scientists hold to the strict scientific method. Obviously there are counter arguments to it such as, hard statistics and defining what adhering to the scientific method is. Perhaps an entire article should be devoted to the topic but then again that might be going overboard. Finally, if it doesn't deserve its own article then which should it go under. What do you'll think?

Philosophy vs. philosophy is actually a common creationist battle cry. Take, for example, the material written over on the naturalism (philosophy) page. Joshuaschroeder 12:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


Under "Scientific criticisms of creation science" it says: "Creationism is not empirically testable. That creationism is not empirically testable stems from the fact that creationism violates a basic premise of science, naturalism."

I disagree that creationism is necesarily opposed to naturalism as a basic premise of science. The scientific method (and general naturalism) doesn't specify why things happen (or if they happen without any reason at all), it just states that they can be observed the same way wether there is a supernatural deity behind or not. Supposing a deity did create the world, this could still be made into a scientific theory, if you are prepared to accept evidence against the predictions this theory makes, and prepared to change your theory if this evidence is found. Those who call themselves "creationists" usually reject the scientific method since they don't want to have to reinterpret their version of Genesis, but many scientists are christians who believe that god created the world, and see no problems interpretating the bible so that it fits scientific theories. Putting equations between "strict" naturalism and science is part of some creationists efforts to make all scientists seem like atheists. Of course some specific variations of naturalism state that there is no reason behind nature, but this interpretation is not inherent in the scientific method. The comment should be rewritten or removed.

Any hypothesis which requires or even allows the possibility of a surpreme being is (almost by definition) impossible to falsify. Raul654 21:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Just checking this forum out as a matter of interest and it would seem that everyone has a stong view one way or the other. My understanding though is that this encyclopedia is meant to present a fair and balanced arguement rather than push peoples biases. There are some scarey statements too such as "creationism violates a basic premise of science, naturalism." I dont mean to offend but this dangerous misinformation to anyone trying to understand pure science and such a belief will lead any scientist to view information with a very biased mindset. The premise of science is the scientific method not naturalism. If a naturalistic theory such as evolution falls out of it then so be it, but to start with naturalism as your premise is expressing exactly the bias creationists accuse secular scientists of doing ! The scientific method is the foundation of science not naturalism - stay focussed people. Whatever your leaning on this, science is the quest for the truth not the quest for a belief system including naturalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Sorry you find the phrase scarey: if you look at the article on Naturalism (philosophy) you'll find clarification that the scientific method inherently looks at that which empirically testable, which effectively limits it to studying and explaining the natural world. This methodological naturalism says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural which by definition is beyond natural testing. From the viewpoint of theistic evolution, including the Roman Catholic view, this makes science compatible with religion, as each has its own realm. However, some creationists want to change the basis of science to support their religious beliefs. Your edit correctly points to creationist claims about "atheistic naturalism", but fails to point out that these claims are false, conflating methodological naturalism with ontological naturalism. ..dave souza, talk 16:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


It would appear that the behaviour mentioned in the RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bensaccount has started up again. I am at a loss as to how to resolve this. FuelWagon 20:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Aim for truth and clarity. Or continue to hide those facts you find offensive. I can only check back every now and then, so do whatever. Bensaccount 23:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Let's see. Bensaccount you said:
"Scientific evidence involves observation but creation of the heavens and earth by God can not be observed."
First of all, the sentence, or argument, makes no sense. The word "but" implies a contradiction. In other words, first is false because second is true. In this case the "first" is probably some "prior belief", possibly in the preceding sentence, possibly what you believe to be common sense, but either way I do not understand what you are implying is false as a result of the last clause. What is this contradiction you are getting at? You should be able to state it clearly and succinctly right here on this talk page. There is also no "therefore" statement to illuminate the argument in anyway. Second, the structure of the argument implies that "the heavens and earth" were in fact created by God. That's obviously POV. Lastly, since I might have an idea of what you are getting at, consider: The big-bang cannot be observed either. Scientific evidence (i.e. recorded and current observation), however, contradicts Abrahimic creationism. Scientific evidence also supports the theory of the big bang which is also contradictory to Abrahimic creationism. Please consider rewording your statement to clarify.--Ben 06:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I hate to poke the beehive, but these arguments have all been made ad nauseam, without success. Bensaccount continues to believe that 'the scientific status of creation science should be clarified', by which he means that its inherent non-scientific nature should be in the first sentence of the introduction. He is unwilling to entertain the possibility that opinions differ, because whether something is science or pseudoscience is a matter of definition, in Bensaccount's eyes.
Bensaccount suggests that, since CS is called 'science', it should be made perfectly clear from the start that this is a misnomer. -- Ec5618 11:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
You prefer the scientific status of CS to not be clarified in the intro? Bensaccount 03:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
It would be undutiful to not mention CS's scientific status if the essence of CS is to be contained in the introduction. Especially considering that one of Creationism's primary goals is to gain mainstream legimancy through semantical obfuscation. Take one of the Discovery Institute's internal documents known as the Wedge Document, the authenticity of which is discussed by Forrest. Part of the Wedge document reads, "Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies." (Forrest, B., 2001, The Wedge at Work). Compare that with what they publically claim. Shawn M. O'Hare 19:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
In so doing the Discovery Institute feels they are obeying the Pauline injunction of "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;" (2Cor.10:5) Endomion 15:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Bones of contention

"Creation scientists assert that the abrupt appearance of complex fossils during the Cambrian period denies the evolutionary time table, and that there are absolutely no intermediate fossils linking the major groups of animals or plants."

Why has this sentence been removed twice? It is common knowledge that creationists use the sudden explosion of life during the Cambrian as evidence of creation as opposed to evolution. Addressing user 'joshuaschroeder,' of course creationists deny the evolution timetable. In fact, they use the Cambrian explosion as one of the main fossil arguments against it. XerKibard 07:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with this statement. First of all, it is blatant POV pushing, is not written in WP:NPOV manner and makes no sense. The Cambrian explosion may be a problem for creationists, but it isn't a problem for evolutionary biologists who are the ones who study the timetable in the frist place. So, to present a portrayal such as this is simply not done properly. It is true that creationists make this argument in the context of the creation-evolution controversy, but that is a separate page. This kind of shoddy, unsupported argumentation also does not belong here because it isn't about creation science as much as it is about attacking evolution. Joshuaschroeder 15:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
That doesn't even make sense. Are you claiming only evolutionary biologists are allowed to draw conclusions from the Cambrian period?
Creation science proponents don't believe a Cambrian period existed. So yes, in this case I am. Joshuaschroeder 04:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
If so, your bias is clearly demonstrated. It is not blatant POV pushing. It's a common argument from creationists, and considering an entire paragraph is used to defend evolution in the face of fossil gaps, it is relevant. We are discussing creation science theory, are we not?
We're discussing creation science as an idea. It is not a theory. Joshuaschroeder 04:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
The Cambrian explosion is used frequently as evidence for the 'special creation' timetable. Nobody else had a problem with the sentence either, only yourself - a self-proclaimed anti-creationist.
When did I proclaim myself an "anti-creationist"? Joshuaschroeder 04:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Lastly, of course the Cambrian explosion has been a problem for evolutionary theory, or are you not aware of the gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium debate? XerKibard 00:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I just read an excellent article about how the Cambrian explosion is a much bigger problem for creationists on Panda's Thumb, but I do know that creationists are fond of making arguments about issues in evolutionary biology. In fact, you can read about them in the appropriate article: creation-evolution controversy. That's where this belongs if it belongs anywhere. Joshuaschroeder 04:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd disagree; since creation scientists make those assertions as a foundation for their, uh, argument... it is appropriate here; and can be rebutted here succinctly. More the merrier is my position. I defer to Joshua's prose, but I can muster something if needed. - RoyBoy 800 05:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
We should definately mention that many arguments user for creationism are actually arguments against evolution (or some strawman version thereof). And unless I'm mistaken we do so, with a link to the 'controversy'. Are you suggesting we mention it more prominently? -- Ec5618 08:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree totally with Ec5618 on this one. We make mention of creation science's problems with evolution -- and that covers the topic well. To single out the Cambrian explosion argument is a bit unrealistic and unencyclopedic since creation science proponents make all sorts of arguments with regards to what they find problematic in mainstream science. In particular, there are arguments that they make about complexity, uniformitarianism, Satan placing dinosaur bones in the Earth to confuse us, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, etc. If we include the Cambrian explosion, we should include all of their harebrained schemes -- but this is totally tangential to the endeavor of creation science which is to explain the observed evidence under the guise of science as creationists would like to interpret it. Creation science is not explicitly argumentative when being descriptive except by proxy. For example, claims that fossils were put down during the flood and mainstream science doesn't explain fossilization as well as they do are made by creationists which include a cleverly disguised dig at the mainstream science while presented their own version of events. And, I may point out, this is already included in the article under the section on flood geology.
The Cambrian Explosion argument falls under the purview of creation-evolution controversy. It also is discussed in creation biology, flood geology, and created kinds. The inclusion here was not encyclopedic, distracting, and out of place with regards to the rest of the article. The only reason the creationists want it in is to redirect the article into a creation-evolution controversy article. We need to avoid this. Joshuaschroeder 13:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah. - RoyBoy 800 17:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
"Creation science proponents don't believe a Cambrian period existed. So yes, in this case I am."

This is either feigned ignorance or plain mendaciousness on your part. Firstly, not all Creationists are of the Young-Earth type as you fail to note. Secondly, Creationist articles constantly refer to the sudden advent of complex life during the Cambrian. They may not agree with the circumstances or supposed timeframe, but they certainly embrace the Cambrian explosion as noted in the fossil record. 01:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

(dr.) Dino

His name has been removed and re-inserted into the article a number of times, now. What should we do? Is 'dr.' Dino a notable creationist, in this article, or is he a horrible creationist and a PR nightmare? -- Ec5618 10:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course he is notable. There are creationists who hate him, but he still tours and gives lectures to numerous churches and organizations. Why should we exclusde him? Joshuaschroeder 14:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Issues in creation science

This heading is redundant IMHO. Most of the content belongs in other sections such as Scientific Criticism. Anyone disagree? RossNixon 03:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The reference under this heading concerning the impossibility of a single global flood appears to hinge upon the assumption that the earth had similar geography as today (height of mountains, etc.) Are there references to justify that assumption? Dan Watts 22:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Trying to attack uniformitarian assumptions, are we? Well, unfortunately it is difficult to "reference" because the creationists don't believe in the timescale measurements, geologic evidence, or the rest of the science that surrounds this impossibility. Joshuaschroeder 02:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I wasn't asking for such a Herculean task. However, the reference supplied (by you?) does not address any evidence supporting the hypothesis that the early earth had a similar topography to its current form. Why was this 'reference' chosen? Dan Watts 04:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Are you saying that you think the reference does not describe what the sentence claims it describes? I don't understand your objection. One could also claim that the reference doesn't justify why it should be written in English, but that's hardly the point. I think you are asking about uniformitarianism still -- which is the way topography then and now is linked, but of course I could be mistaken. I guess I need clarification on what exactly your issue is. Joshuaschroeder 09:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
O.K. Yes, I am asking about geological uniformitarianism. I am also asking why it is apparently acceptable for THIS reference to express incredulity concerning the implied rate of sedimentation while this same trait is attacked in creationist's arguments. Are the rules different for the two sides? Dan Watts 13:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Pointing out that there is evidence for sedimentation rates that are fluctuating through time is not the same thing as claiming that miles of rock were laid down during a global flood. Joshuaschroeder 14:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
How about evidence that the Yellowstone eruption was 1000 km^3 or that the Toba eruption was 3000 km^3 or that the current sedimentation rate of the Dar es Salaam harbor is 43 cm/yr or that the January 1996 flood of the lower Susquehanna moved 15 million tons of sediment into Chesapeake Bay (5X the annual amound deposited in that river bottom) in one day. One river, one day, one flood from 3-4 feet of melted snow + 3-4 inches of rain deposited enough sediment to cover a square kilometer ~8.5 m deep. What is so daunting about a few kilometers of sediment over a year? Dan Watts 22:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Comparing the volume of a Yellowstone eruption which occurred over the area of 1/4 of the state of Wyoming is not the same as the volume of sediment needed to cover the entire Earth, and you need more than a few kilometers of sediment since the lithospheric pressure needed to create the sedimentary rock will effectively shrink the layers. Joshuaschroeder 23:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
1) I never stated that one volcanic eruption would be sufficient, and 2) I used 100 lb/ft^3 for the sediment density. If you would rather have 160 lb/ft^3 (medium-high density limestone, more dense than clay or sandstone) then the height goes from 8.5 m to 5.3 m (and that is for a single river's one-day flood). Still, a global flood with tectonic activity (whatever the fountains of the deep are/were, breaking them up should classify as tectonic activity) might well be accompanied by volcanic activity.
Again, what is so daunting about a year-long global flood and associated tectonic and volcanic activity being sufficient to deposit a few kilometers of compressed sediment (stone)? Dan Watts 13:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
A single river's flood covers a square kilometer. This is from a watershed that is tens of thousands of square kilometers. So if you have access to that much sediment to deposit over the entir Earth from a miraculous source, then a global flood makes sense. However, without miracles there is no observed process that would account for kilometers of sediment deposited over the entire Earth. And volcanism deposits a totally different kind of rock, so let's leave that out for now. Joshuaschroeder 14:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
1) There is no argument that a global flood classifies as a miracle. 2) The Susquehanna watershed size is not strictly germaine except as a source of the sediment. One river's single day's flood-induced deposition (due to the equivalent of 6 inches of rain) of the equivalent of 5+ m thichness on a square kilometer would scale to ~1.8 km thickness in a year. Note that this is one day. The far reaches of the Susquehanna watershed could not have any immediate contribution to the flood. The water couldn't travel that fast. Scouring of the entire earth's surface for a year seems quite geometrically possible as a source of kilometers of sediment. 3) O.K. leave vulcanism out. The preceeding calculation appears to make its contribution not strictly necessary. I assume landslides are still allowable. Dan Watts 15:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
If you think that floods of rivers do not depend on the watershed, you are well-mistaken. The argument isn't that the river expelled its entire watershed into the flood but rather that the flood builds for weeks if not months up stream before depositing material downstream. You are asking to suspend disbelief on two facts: 1) River floods are supposed to scale up to 365 days a year at the same rate of sedimentation, 2) They are supposed to occur over an area larger than the mouth of the river from a source that can only be described as "miraculous". These are both physically untenable. It's like claiming that because a lightning storm can create several hundred megawatts of power that there could have been a sustained, massive storm event which could account for the creation of the Grand Canyon. Joshuaschroeder 18:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Apparently I am not communicating effectively. I was attempting to extrapolate the river flood-flow deposition as a scaling device for an entirely innundated earth surface with accompanying unimpeded (by shoreline) azimuthal oceanic tidal flow over the crust. Obviously, any currently-measured phenomena will not match the described situation particularly well, but the scale of mass moved should be, at least roughly, consistent. Under that (miraculous) condition (What would be the ocean tidal velocity of a totally water-covered earth?), kilometers of sediment being worn/scoured from the surface, and then being re-deposited appears to be nowhere-near unlikely. Dan Watts 19:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Scaleable phenomenon would require you increase the timescale for your miraculous global flood as well, but where does the miracle end and the physics begin? So you are apparently claiming that simply soaking a terrain-free Earth in a few meters of water would give you enough sediment to deposit all the rock layers observed today, is that what you are saying? Because if this is what you are saying, I'm not sure how you are going to get any sediment whatsoever. Sediment is collected into rivers by mechanical weathering processes associated with runoff. In a total innundation, what process gives you runoff? Or are you claiming that the tides will give you enough mechanical weathering to create the sediment needed? But tides will be the same on a totally water-covered planet as they are today. So, yes, I have to say you are apparently not communicating effectively. Joshuaschroeder 19:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Why would tides be the same? There would be no continental barriers to completely stop/turn them, and the lesser depth of the previously non-inundated surface wrt the previous ocean depths should have a bernoulli-type effect on flow. And wouldn't 900+ hours of downpour cause terrain damage due to floods and landslides? Dan Watts 11:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Tides are a result of differential gravitational force which is exactly the same as before unless you move or add mass to the moon. You can calculate from first principles what the nominal height of the tide is and it is roughly 3 meters. Local topagraphy can amplify or lessen the tides, but there wouldn't be any of that on a water covered planet.
Undoubtably terrain damage would occur, but only to the extent that we've seen it before. It's not duration of rain but rather total amount that causes the damage, and it was my impression that you were going for something on the order of meters deep (well undertsood in terms of the biggest rainstorm flooding we see today). Joshuaschroeder 15:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Our understanding of "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." (Genesis 7:20) must be divergent. I understand it as being the minimum draft that the ark would have encountered. This would imply a much larger average flood depth (which is probably not well undertsood in terms of the biggest rainstorm flooding we see today). Dan Watts 16:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Well you can't have it both ways. If the flooding we see today can be applied to a global flood, then there has to be a means to describing sedimentation. As I understand it, terrain damage occurs pretty much the same for a flood of water that's a meter deep and above. Do you have any indication that this isn't the case? Joshuaschroeder 15:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I would guess that the proposed Bonneville Lake Flood with its catastrophic outflow at Red Rock Pass traced all the way to Pocatello would be a reasonable start of scaling for sediment placement and rock scour volumes. Dan Watts 18:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Assuming the Earth was featureless, as you suggest, and 15 cubits (about 7.8 metres) of water was the minimum, and assuming tides would add 3 metres locally, the Earth would have been covered by no more than 10.8 metres of water, to an average of 9.3 metres. The world's oceans contain about 1370 million km³, while the Earth has a surface area of 510 million km². This water could cover the Earth with about 2.7 kilometres of water. This is obviously a long way from the 9.3 metres suggested in the bible. If the Earth was ever covered in a minimum of 7.8 metres of water, I think we can conclude the Earth was not featureless. Genesis' mention of submerged mountains points in the same direction. What is the point of speculating on a featurless Earth?
And again, what of layering? How do you explain that different layers of rock contain different fossils, minerals, and organic material? Buoyancy doesn't hold up.
Thanks Dan Watts, for catching my error-- Ec5618 16:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I do not remember postulating a featureless earth (Although I was envisioning a less-features one. The Himalayas, e.g., are currently rising at ~1cm/year). As for erosion rates, see [1] for images of erosion after the Mount St. Helens eruption. (Not the same source material, but still erosion.) As for layering mechanisms (and laboratory experimentation) see [2]. Dan Watts 19:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Your source merely mentions that, when sand is poured, large grains are more likely to be found near the base, while small grains are more likely near the top. "Multiple laminations form spontaneously during sedimentation of heterogranular mixtures of sediments in air, in still water, and in running water". That doesn't address my question though, such mixing problems have been the subject of study for years. On a related note, shaking a box of mixed nuts will cause bigger nuts to surface. I asked how CS explaines that fossils are found in these distinct layers. Why are fossils of 'younger' bones near the top, when this research would suggest that all bones bigger than the sand should be found at the bottom? Why are we talking about sand at all, when the issue is rockstrata?
Sandstone is made of sand. Sandstone is rock. Dan Watts 03:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
See Figure 2 in [3] for multiple fine layers which are not sand and were produced within hours.
I was already aware that molten rock could solidify, forming igneous rock. Not all rock is igneous though. What you're looking for is sedimentary rock. Also, I 'asked how CS explaines that fossils are found in these distinct layers. Why are fossils of 'younger' bones near the top, when this research would suggest that all bones bigger than the sand should be found at the bottom?' -- Ec5618 21:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Were those layers molten at time of deposition? I am researching your question on fossils. It looks as if it will take ~1 week to go through the information at hand. I will respond then. Dan Watts 03:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Unique layers of rock seem to have unique fossil remains, ages, mineral compositions and organic compositions. Are you suggesting that sedimentation coincidentally layered sand in this way? Are you suggesting that the criteria used by sedimentation to determine in what layer an object or substance should be deposited, coincide with the criteria we use to determine composition and age?
'It makes sense to conclude that these layers of sediment were deposited gradually, over time, as surface conditions changed. That this fits with fossil records and all known dating techniques is just a bonus.' -- Ec5618 19:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The Lewis 'overthrust' in which a 15-30 mile wide layer is assumed to be laterally transported over 'younger' strata for ~35 miles bears investigation concerning the 'distinct layer' hypothesis. Dan Watts 20:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Alright, I'll bite. How so? Is overthrust not a well understood phenomenon? Older layers of rock are lifted up, younger layers of rock are pushed down. Still, why do 'unique layers of rock seem to have unique fossil remains, ages, mineral compositions and organic compositions.' By what mechanism were they divided? How do rocks of age X and fossils of age X end up in the same layer? How is it possible that for hundreds of kilometres around volcanos we can see distinct layers of ash that seems to correspond with a vulcanic eruption at some time in the past? -- Ec5618 21:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
An overthrust fault is a fracture that is caused by compressional stress. I'm not sure where the problem comes from. Joshuaschroeder 15:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
The problem comes from Ec's statement "fossils of 'younger' bones near the top" and overthrusts supposedly reversing the order of depositional layers. Dan Watts 03:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Do you deny that an overthrust would put younger layers below older layers on either side of the fault? Joshuaschroeder 05:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
If an overthrust occurred, I would not deny that it may rearrange layers. Dan Watts 20:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Kilometers of sediment over a year are daunting. 1000km^3? That's ten kilometers, cubed. That is nowhere near impressive. And those thick deposits of sediment were probably not sharply devided into layers put down at 13:34 and at 13:36. When we look inside the Earth, we do see clear lines dividing different layers of rock, milimetres thick, in places. They contain different amounts of minerals, of organic material, and different fossils. All of these things correlate.
It doesn't make sense to assume that in a brief moment in time, specific species of animals started to die, one after the other (and never out of order), and specific minerals were deposited. It does make sense to conclude that these layers of sediment were deposited gradually, over time, as surface conditions changed. That this fits with fossil records and all known dating techniques is just a bonus. -- Ec5618 23:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Similarly, the referenced 'disproof' of special creation appears to be founded on rapid changes of bacteria and mosquitos to drug-resistant strains. This addresses micro-evolution (or possibly exploring the available gene space that the organisms can inhabit), but that is not equivalent to 'proving' that common descent from a single ancestor happened (or that it could). Dan Watts 22:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course, there is no "proof" in science. There is falsification, though. Special creation as an idea can be falsified when it comes down to predictions that shouldn't occur if it really is true. Common descent comes from many different and disparate forms of evidence. Joshuaschroeder 02:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Ah! Falsification! That is something else this reference does not mention. Perhaps there is a more on-subject reference which would address the falsification of special creation. Dan Watts 04:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Whether a reference mentions falsification explicitly or not is hardly the issue. What the reference does mention is that creation science has no means for explaining how speciation timeframes that are observed account for incredulity about evolution. That is all. Joshuaschroeder 09:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I assume that the observation of speciation rates is inferred from fossil evidence, not laboratory measurements. Dan Watts 13:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Acutally, laboratory measurements of speciation in generations match well with those observed from the fossil record. Joshuaschroeder 18:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Why does the FACT that creationists take issue with geological uniformitarianism need to be excised from the article? Dan Watts 02:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That FACT is too narrow. Creationists take issue with uniformitarianism in general. In particular, creationists have taken issue with such uniformitarian assumptions as the speed of light (see c-decay) and the physical assumptions associated with radiometric dating. --ScienceApologist 03:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Quote from Dawkins

"If there were a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found." - Dawkins

Why was this posted exactly? It is a blatant red herring. Nobody is claiming hippos or rabbits existed in the Precambrian. The Cambrian period is the issue.

It is a bit of a red herring for you to claim this is a red herring. Since creation science believes that special creation demanded a creation of the biosphere in 6 days, the difference between the cambrian and the pre-cambrian is barely noticeable for them. Joshuaschroeder 09:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
It seems you have a tendency to misrepresent any opposing views to your own. Not all Creationists accept the six periods of creation to be literal days. It also doesn't alter the fact the the above quote is a red herring. It has no relevance whatsoever as not even Young-Earth creationists claim rabbits, hippos etc. existed in the period before the creation of complex life. 01:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, not all creationists are YEC. However, as those who are claiming creation science is valid are YEC. They do not believe that the fossil record is complete or well ordered and since they think that sediment is laid down during the flood, Dawkins' quote is perfectly reasonable. Joshuaschroeder 15:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Just take it out. It is very simple. It is obviously fallacious and Dawkins meant it rhetorically. If it upsets people to have it in, take it out. Consider why you want it in so much. It is not a reasonable argument. It is argument from ignorance to some people who would argue that affirmative evidence could not reasonably be expected to be found (though I would disagree with that.) If you would like, instead write what you said above straight into the article if it is true and verifiable. Explain the quote if necessary, maybe explain that the scientific view is that these fossils would likely have been found if you can verify it. Or you can take it out and not have to do any work (and not risk being accused, probably quite rightly, of making the article into a personal essay). It is just a quote. Find a better one maybe.--Ben 06:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Vatican says: Pay attention to Science

This is an interesting and relevant article. Synaptidude 01:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


I've just reverted the same paragraph twice in a few minutes. This para is POV unless you can provide sources to back it up. The preceeding para which had been replaced does provide sources. Ian Cairns 17:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand that you didn't like the strong pov or replacing the NAS paragraph, but is your only problem with the newer version the lack of source? Then how is this? (It's getting a bit long though...) TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 19:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
A fundamental position taken by creation scientists is that both creationists and evolutionists have the same set of scientific facts, and it is how one interprets them through a chosen framework that determines the conclusions from these facts. Creation scientists do not agree that evolutionists deal with real science while they deal with pseudo-science. Instead, creationists charge that scientists who support evolution are interpreting the facts in light of materialism, naturalism and/or atheism. For example, Jonathan Sarfati of Answers in Genesis states that "It is a fallacy to believe that facts speak for themselves—they are always interpreted according to a framework. The framework behind the evolutionists’ interpretation is naturalism—it is assumed that things made themselves, that no divine intervention has happened, and that God has not revealed to us knowledge about the past. . . . So it’s not a question of biased religious creationists versus objective scientific evolutionists; rather, it is the biases of the Christian religion versus the biases of the religion of secular humanism resulting in different interpretations of the same scientific data."[4]
which is of course nonsense, and they know it. The point is falsifiability. Creationists fail to present clear conditions under which they would accept their hypothesis was mistaken. "Naturalists" in the 17th and 18th century didn't start out thinking "things made themselves", they just started measuring things, and taking results at face values. That everything turned out consistent with gradual evolution was a slow and painful process of discovery. Creationists could argue on equal footing with 17th century scholars, but today they are simply sad, oblivious of all progress of the past 300 years. dab () 22:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Non-science disclaimer

I think this page needs a disclaimer on it to the effect that "creation science" is a misnomer and that it is not actually science in regards to the standard definition of science regarding the scientific method et al. --Cyde 01:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

No scientist will accept it as science, so while we can very well say that its adherents use the term "Creation science" in an attempt to portray it as science (why they like to pretend that they think "science" sounds better than "faith" is beyond rational discussion, I suppose) -- but it should only be used in quotation marks, or in italics, marking it it as a 'pov' or 'PR' or 'spin' term. dab () 22:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
"No scientist"?!?!?! Come on now, how can you start of with such an obviously wrong statement as that? There are plenty of scientist who accept it as a science. I'd have no problem naming plenty of the top of my head, starting of with myself! Mathmo 18:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
What if religious Wikipedians started going around putting disclaimers on pages like secular humanism stating that it is a misnomer and is actually a religion, and that although secular humanists like to pretend "secular" sounds better, it should only be used in quotation marks or italics marking it as a spin term? Endomion 03:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
If it were done appropriately, there would be no problem. In particular, it is clear to me that there are notable critics which claim that secular humanists actually subscribe to religion. This is mentioned in various articles including creation-evolution controversy. --ScienceApologist 03:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. A page called "_________ Science," describing something which is in no way related to science, should say so at the top of the page to avoid confusion.--Xiaphias 18:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Creation Science is related to science. rossnixon 21:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Creation science is related to science in the same way that a meat grinder is related to a cow. Raul654 21:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ross, Creation Science is not science, SCOTUS doesn't think its science, the two largest creation science oranizations, IRC and AiG both admit that what they are doing if fundamentally religious. At best creation science is related to science in so far any pseudoscience is related to science. I wholeheartedly support a disclaimer at the topi. JoshuaZ 21:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Raul, but what if the crow flies into the meat grinder?  :) OK, seriously, Ross, Creation Science is not just a misnomer, it is an oxymoron, along the same lines as say, Astrological Science, or Spirit Science, or Alchemical Science. Jim62sch 11:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC) (originally posted at 18:28, 24 February 2006)
Secular Science has the a priori assumption that everything has a naturalistic cause. Creation Science has the a priori assumption that everything has a theistic origination.
The Ph.D. scientists who work for or contribute to AiG, believe in Creation so call themselves Creation Scientists. They believe that scientific inquiry can and will support their assumption. Both groups do operational science by the scientific method; but since we can't go back and observe it, origins science is basically a faith position for both groups. rossnixon 08:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Uh, no. Nice try, but wrong. As the existence of a deity or deities is unobservable absent a suspension of disbelief that allows inference to replace said observation, and given that the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities is neither provable nor disprovable, you do a nice job of explaining why creation science isn't science by stating, "Creation Science has the a priori assumption that everything has a theistic origination". The inclusion of an unobservable supernatural entity negates any use of the word science when referring to creationism.
The non-existence of a deity (or deities) is also completely unobservable. Or provable for that matter as well. Mathmo 18:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Which is why science has nothing to do with trying to prove the existance or non-existance of god. Jefffire 19:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Yet you fail to see you are trying to do exactly that by rubbishing something merely because you claim it can't be so due to the non-existence of God. Mathmo 21:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The argument that AiG's PhD scientists lend it an air of legitimacy, without noting that the fields in which the PhD's were awarded are generally unrelated to the sciences necessary to enter into the debate, as well as failing to note the there are PhD scientists who believe that aliens have landed on earth, that the Bible Code is legitimate, the astrology is a true science, etc., is specious at best, downright disingenuous at worst.
The only peer reviewed scientific papers published by any of AiG's PhD's have been unrelated to "creation science" (see Sarfati). The oft-repeated argument, "that's because mainstream science has refused to consider them", is also bogus as creation scientists do not even attempt peer review knowing that their alleged scientific finding are flawed and highly speculative.
The argument that "we can't go back and observe it" is specious, too, as nature leaves behind convenient telltale signs in both the fossil and DNA records, thus allowing one to note easily evolution's progression.
You are not observing it that directly, rather there is a large degree of interpretation that the 'observer' places on what s/he 'sees'. A geologist (in this aspect) is in a sense a form of a historian, and historians don't go around being as confident as they are being in something so extremely old! Just look at the degree of uncertainty they can have about something only a few thousands of years old and the widely differing views which they may hold. That length of time span is nothing compared to millions of years Mathmo 18:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Finally, the argument that science and evolution operate from what is "basically a faith position" merely indicates an ignorance of science, while trying to paint science and evolution as religions. This latter assertion is merely a propaganda tool used by fundamentalist Christians to imply that their scientific rivals are actually enemies of "God".
Bottom line: dressing a creationist up in a lab-coat does not make him a scientist. Jim62sch 11:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
These creationist you are talking about are not merely "playing dress up" as you are tying to make fun of them by saying they are. Rather these are highly intelligent people who have spent many many years of their life studying in their chosen area of speciality, and have often given up potentially lucrative careers in it had been from them deciding to go out and take all this kind of flack by calling themselves creation scientist. Mathmo 18:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Science does not set out with any end point in mind - the evidence amasses and a theory is born. Religion starts out with the answers and then tries to make what is observed fit. That is why Creation science is disingenuous and a warning banner would be appropriate. CuteWombat 22:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
As soon as Science would proof the existence of god, goddess, or whatever deity you may chose, she/he has moved from the metaphysical to the physical and effectily become part of the naturalistic worldview that is the basis of science. If someone would show the existence of a deity, or proofs that deities do not exist, and it would be repeatable by others, it would be an instant Nobel Price (question is only, which one?). Untill then, they belong to the metaphysical world outside of Science. --KimvdLinde 22:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I slightly tweaked the intro, se if this, with the already extant point that CS is pseudoscience clears this up. Jim62sch 22:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Mountain heights

In the flood geology section, it says that Noah's flood is impossible due to the heights of mountains. I changed this to say that this assumed no significant change in mountain heights. I submit that there is extensive evidence of mountain upthrust during and since Noah's Flood. See for example. My edit put back in. RossNixon 23:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that mountain upthrust can occur in such a timescale. --ScienceApologist 01:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Those who attack Flood Geology, as impossible, should attack what it's proponents claim. None of it's proponents claim that the flood waters were kilometres deep. Therefore Flood Geologists would agree with you that the flood that you describe is impossible. You are describing a different flood, which no one proposes and then attacking it. Therefore it should either be removed, or the assumption added back in. RossNixon 10:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, the Institute for Creation Research asserts that the highest mountain chains arose after the flood [5]. Endomion 15:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
If the mountains rose after the flood avoiding kilometers deep flood, then they have the problem of mountain uplift. If the mountains were the size they are now, then they have the problem of lack of water. --ScienceApologist 18:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
What "problem of mountain uplift" is this? Is the timeframe impossible? For Mt Everest, 29000/4500 = 6.4 ft per year, assuming there was no small mountain to begin with. Of course it probably was fast to begin with and is now just a few inches per year. RossNixon 05:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
When was the last time uplift of that magnitude was measured? What geophysical processes could occur which would allow for this kind of uplift? --ScienceApologist 05:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
December 26, 2004. See [6] Dan Watts 14:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
That's not uplift, that's faulting. --ScienceApologist 14:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Tell that to the side of the fault that rose. Dan Watts 15:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Upthrust != mountain uplift --ScienceApologist 19:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
They surely seem to be in close proximity. See [7] or [8] or [9] where it states "For the past 50 million years India has continued to plow into Asia at a rate of about 5 cm per year. The collision has squeezed both India and Tibet, creating a series of thrust faults that have almost doubled the thickness of the crust in the collision zone." That looks like faults are part of orogeny. [10] and [11] appear to correlate earthquake activity (along faults) with Himalayan orogeny, so how does one separate upthrusts from orogeny? Dan Watts 13:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The Himalayas are fold mountains. Any associated faulting thickens the crust by dropping the crust down past the Moho. --ScienceApologist 15:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Does this report [12] which shows "Cross sections ...of a part of the Sierra Nacimiento uplift based on the upthrust model of Sanford (1959). " and also discusses a "Gravity model for upthrust interpretation of the Sierra Nacimiento uplift." [italics added] support the hypothesis "Upthrust != mountain uplift" ? Dan Watts 14:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Some mountain ranges are fault mountains, but very few. The Sierra Nacimiento is one example. However, reverse faulting as a mechanism for mountain building is known to be very rare, which is why the paper is novel. Why don't creation science advocates content themselves with the fact that the mountain building mechanisms found in geology exclude flood geology I don't know, but nonetheless here we are. --ScienceApologist 14:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
"...the island rose and is now several kilometers longer. No information has been provided on how much the island rose, but preliminary data indicates that it may have been as much as 5 meters." [13] But what do I know, I'm just a stupid theist. Endomion 15:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Instead of harping on religious bias, maybe you should take some time to learn the difference between fault upthrust and mountain uplift. --ScienceApologist 16:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
RossNixon, my statement was neither in favor nor against the conjecture of post-Flood mountain-building, I only offered a link to the ICR which shows that they do indeed accept a flood that was 5.5 miles deep, and they propose that high mountains such as the Rockies are very recent. Endomion 05:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Well I hear that the top 3000 ft of Mt Everest is sedimentary rock containing sea shells, so surely this was once a sea-bed? Sure, the flood could have been 5.5 miles deep, but if it's purpose was to cover the mountains, I expect it need not have been so deep. RossNixon 00:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
RossNixon, the problem is that the kind of mountain building that would be required to raise the earth's high mountains from, say, 3000 feet to their current elevation would blanket the earth in ash in the case of igneous rock or involve a much higher level of seismic activity, and neither of these are attested to in history. Endomion 01:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
If there were only 8 survivors -- say in a very large seaworthy barge? -- then we wouldn't necessarily expect a detailed history to be recorded. RossNixon 00:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


Cpcjr, creationwiki is not a valid source for these purposes. JoshuaZ 19:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Why? cpcjr

Multiple reasons. First, in general wikis are not valued sources for wikipedia. On top of that, creationwiki is a highly POVy source with a massive built in bias for these sorts of issues. JoshuaZ 05:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Than you, I suspected as much.

While your point about wikis in general is valid, the second point is not because of the context of the reference. The Context of the reference was the current creationist view of Gentry's hypothesis, that being that it has been falsified. What you are saying in affect is that a creationists website is not a valid source on creationist views.



{{POV check}}

An anon user placed the POV-check into the article, but failed to spell out his point here on the discussion page. I've removed the tag and placed it here so that a discussion may be held. Ian Cairns 06:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Since there has been no further discussion on the purpose of the POV check and POV checks on the talk page almost never get looked at, I'm converting the template into a template link to remove this talk page from the POV check article list. If anyone would like a POV check on the article, feel free to place the template in the article itself with an explaination here. Good luck! -- ShinmaWa(talk) 20:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This page is POV because it is written totally from the POV of the opponents of Creation Science. As result the POV check had been added.


The user-profiles of many of those in the edit history of this page indicate that a number of them were creationists. If we are to proceed we need evidence. Please outline your concerns with the prose and we'll get this party started. --ScienceApologist 13:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

While I see a general negative over tone toward Creation Science in the article there are three places that stand out.

  • The "radiohalos" section is out of date and my efforts to correct that were removed.
  • The section under "Scientific criticisms of creation science" has no response to the objections to creation science's scientific nature.
  • The section under "Flood geology" is particularly problematic. While reference to mainstream geologists not seeing the flood in the geologic record could handled by a simple reference to the fact that they view that record through a uniformitarian model, the reference to a globe flood being impossible because of the need to cover Mount Everest is a a straw man since no Creationist proposes that the Flood covered Mount Everest at its current hight.

If these three problems are corrected, that would take care of the worst of the problems and make the article at least tolerable.


  • I welcome corrections to the radiohalos section, but we need to make sure that such corrections are neutral and verifiable. I'm pretty sure Gentry does not yet admit his findings are falsified, so we need to be careful how we write this.
  • Response to scientific criticisms should be evident in the article itself. This isn't supposed to be a debate: it's a presentation of verifiable summaries of the subject.
  • The objections aren't simply through a uniformitarian model either, and despite this being a "strawman" in most creationists eyes, it certainly is one of the many counterpoints used. I could envision changing the wording of this. Why don't you try writing for the enemy and offer a rewording?

--ScienceApologist 22:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Radiohalos rewrite suggestion

  • On the radiohalos allot depends on what you mean by verifiable, I proposed the wording below with a reference to the primary source, unfortunately it is a book and not a web page.

Research conducted by Creation Scientists subsequent to Gentry reports evidence that most radiohalos are found in granite that formed during Noah's Flood. This would falsify Gentry's hypothesis since Polonium isotopes have half lives considerably shorter than the time thought to had occurred between Creation and the Flood. This shows that at least some Creation Scientists test their hypotheses and abandon those found wanting. There is at this time no evidence that Gentry himself accepts this conclusion.

Several points: a book sold on the AiG website indicates creationist POV, and likely means that the book was not peer-reviewed. Jim62sch 10:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, there are a number of problems with the above statement:
  1. Granite is a plutonic rock that forms by cooling for extended periods of time. To suggest granite "formed during Noah's flood" is to fly in the face of the verifiable sources on how granite forms. This doesn't seem to be anything more than a spat between creationists about the interpretation of observations which are explained completely differently by the mainstream. Rather than going into such detail, it would be a better idea to keep summaries of the main points with their rebuttals and leave it at that. If you want to include this criticism directly on the radiohalo page, that may be more appropriate where you can at least qualify that other creationists disagree with Gentry, but I don't think this particular spat belongs on the creation science page as it is not indicative of creation science.
  2. The point about falsifiability is a value judgement; basically a POV inappropriately reported as fact.
  3. "Creation scientist" is a neologism and is avoided on Wikipedia, again as a backdoor POV.
--ScienceApologist 13:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I added a section on an article by Thomas A. Baillieul that disputes completely Gentry's claims. Jim62sch 00:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Scientific criticism criticism

  • With regards to the "scientific criticisms" section perhaps the best solution is would be a link to a separate site providing a responses. That would have the advantage giving the reader access to a response with out turning the page into a debate. It would also have the advantage of avoiding hostile editing of the response. No insult intended but I have encountered a few Evolutionists that would stoop to that. One possible place would be Creationwiki, if that's agree able.
In keeping with other articles on this topic, the criticism section needs to stay. The problem with creation science is that it is both religion and pseudoscience masquerading as real science. Thus, the criticisms are warranted. Jim62sch 10:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
We cannot link to "responses" as that would be removing valuable information simply to avoid the pretense of controversy. If you think there are notable and verifiable responses, work them into the main body of text. --ScienceApologist 13:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Flood geology counterpoints

  • The third one is more difficult since Mount Everest reference not a valid counterpoint. Every Creationist Scientist, I know of; myself included; would agree that such a flood would be impossible so including it here is not proper. The best solution is to remove the Mount Everest reference and do some rewording of the rest of the paragraph as follows:

Mainstream geologists conclude that no such flood is seen in the preserved rock layers. Many creationists see these conclusions as a result of a combination of uniformitarian thinking and insufficient understanding of the Flood. Since these creationists see the Flood as more than just water, but including other geologic events as well it is argued that the Flood can explain the fossil record and the evidence from geology and paleontology that are often used to dispute creationists' claims. The above ideas are in opposition to the mainstream principles of geology, advocates of flood geology reject uniformitarianism and the findings of radiometric dating while giving reasons for doing so. The Creation Research Society argues that "uniformitarianism is wishful thinking" [14].


The Mount Everest question is germane to the discussion, and merely sweeping it under the rug because it is inconvenient is not the answer. Jim62sch 10:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I should be interested in seeing such an article, it might shed light on something that was missed. Personally, I long to see how flood geology explains away the "Everest strawman" in the sense of, what height does it imagine Everest to have been; how much water is available on the planet; how deep were the oceans; given what we know of erosion and hydrostatics, what precisely would the force of the water need to be in order to effect the geological changes evisioned; and what is to be said of plate techtonics? Jim62sch 23:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all water was not the only factor in the the Flood, what exactly the other factors were depends on the model, but here is a link that answers many of your questions. Noah's Flood-what about all that water?


Well, thanks for the link, but I note that virtually everything stated therein is a physical impossibility and for the most part does not answer my questions, absent the presentation of wild hypotheses of what might have happened "if pigs had wings". In fact, entirely too much of the story relies on a series of miracles -- dumping the oceans (and water locked inside the earth that should have boiled off (see volcanoes)) upon the land, but not allowing them to recede naturally until after the flood was over; catastrophic upheavals in tectonic plates that would have literally ripped the earth apart, rather than flooding it; etc.
In any case, while we're presenting links, here is a good scientific source: Flood Geology Problems with a Global Flood A Visit to the Institute for Creation Research Claim CH561.4: Claim CH561.3: Claim CH570:, etc. Jim62sch 10:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Many creationists see these conclusions as a result of a combination of uniformitarian thinking and insufficient understanding of the Flood. --> do you have a source for "many" creationists concluding this?
Since these creationists see the Flood as more than just water, but including other geologic events as well it is argued that the Flood can explain the fossil record and the evidence from geology and paleontology that are often used to dispute creationists' claims.' --> this fact is already discussed in the section about flood geology. Repeating it doesn't serve any purpose.
The above ideas are in opposition to the mainstream principles of geology, advocates of flood geology reject uniformitarianism and the findings of radiometric dating while giving reasons for doing so. The Creation Research Society argues that "uniformitarianism is wishful thinking" [15]. --> While this is true, it gives the impression that the Global Flood is rejected by mainstream scientists on only two grounds. In fact, as can be seen both on this page and the Flood geology page, the global flood is rejected on many more grounds than this. The objection to uniformitarianism is already included in the article. Repeating it doesn't serve any purpose.
--ScienceApologist 13:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
There is another problem with the geological aspect of the flood story: Creationists argue that massive plate shifts let loose torrents of water; however, had such massive plate shifts occurred, the resultant subduction would have caused Mt Everest to form virtually instantaneously, and thus the problem of covering it by 15 cubits remains. Jim62sch 00:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Article cleanup

I tried to make "Creation Science" capitalized through the article, though we may consider switching it all over to uncaps. What we want to avoid is the awful looking "Creation science" that had shown up in the article (perhaps due to Wikipedia article naming convention).

Over the months, some POV-creep has occurred in this article. I've tried to make the prose more NPOV including

  • changing sentences where the subject "creation science" is anthropomorphized and replaced these with "Creation Science advocates".
  • fixing the history section, including the removal of the "Theory of Special Creation" which technically doesn't exist.
  • making a new criticism section for history, philosophy, and sociology.
  • removal of creationist counterpoints in the criticism sections for consistency sake. That's not to say that verifiable facts along those lines cannot be included in the article, just that tit-for-tat argumentation should be eschewed in favor of description of position and description of criticism rather than a "debate style" prose.

I think this improves the article greatly,

--ScienceApologist 20:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

SA -- excellent job! As for the caps, I looked on the web and there's a pretty even split between caps and lower case. I would treat it the way evolution, intelligent design, irreducible complexity, theory of relativity, etc., are generally written, all lower case. Jim62sch 12:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


To clarify my earlier complaints about the article's POV, my objections can be summarized as follows: The article gives space to criticisms of creation science, but it does not give equal space to arguments for creationism or give the creationist responses to the criticisms. To qualify as truly NPOV, the article must: 1. Give at least as much space to arguments for creationism as it does for criticisms of it 2. Allow creationists a chance to answer the criticism. Creationists certainly have answers to every criticism presented on this page, but the answers are not even mentioned.

--EthanSudman 04:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware they have answers for some but not all of the criticisms. I may try to add some of their responses later. JoshuaZ 04:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
If you wish to add responses, please do it in the main body of the work. For example, if the creationist response to 'Creationists are not peer-reviewed' is 'The scientific establishment is biased', find some place in the body of the main article to state that 'the scientific establishment is biased' rather than polluting the criticism section. This is not to denigrate the creationist position, only to avoid debate-style rather than summary style writing. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 04:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

And if the statement 'Creationists are not peer-reviewed' is demonstratively false - why are corrections (with supporting proof) not allowed? This whole Wiki concept for controverial issues is a silly waste of time. Whoever wants to blow their time away the most gets their view out, regardless of the facts.

While you may presume that creationists do not publish in peer reviewed scientific journals, this is a misconception. There are many Creationists active in original research, and several organizations exist to facilitate this work including the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, the Creation Research Society, the Bible Science Association, and Reasons to Believe to name a few. There are several peer reviewed creationist technical journals such as TJ and the CRS Quarterly.

Many creationists also publish in mainstream scientific journals within their respective fields of discipline and their publication records compare favorably with that of other groups. For example, the ten scientists on the staff of the Institute for Creation Research have published more than 150 research papers and 10 books in their own scientific fields -- all in standard scientific journals or through secular book publishers -- in addition to hundreds of creationist articles and about 50 books on creation and related subjects published through creationist channels. Whenever these articles or books have creationist implications, however, they must be "masked" in order to get them published in secular outlets. Blatantly creationist articles or books are generally rejected out of hand by secular publishers. For example, when the Creation Research Society, with a team of fully-qualified Ph.D. biologists and other scientists were ready to publish their high school textbook, not one of the 15 leading textbook publishers would even so much as look at the manuscript -- claiming their other books would be boycotted if they were to publish a creationist biology textbook.

None of this responds to the major style guidelines presented above. --ScienceApologist 01:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Inherently Pseudoscience

Creation "Science" will never be a science or theory for a number of reasons. First off, it does not follow the scientific method.

'Creation scientists' are not out looking for the truth and facts as actual scientists are, they are looking for specific 'evidence' that conforms with their stone-set beliefs.

eerrrr... and exactly how does that differ from a lot of other scientist? If we admitt it or not most people have a lot of firmly held beliefs on certain subjects. Mathmo 18:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and "carefully named"

I hesitate to poke my nose in here, but I think the words "carefully named" in the opening sentence violate NPOV. They impute a definite motivation to creationists, and that, I think, would require a citation. "Carefully named" suggests that creationists were intentially obfuscating when they chose the term, and while I agree that that is surely what happened I think motivations are murky enough that the words should be removed unless a strong citation can be found (in which case it probably doesn't belong in the opening sentence anyway). Since this is a two-week-old addition by an anonymous IP address, I hope deleting those words won't cause undue consternation, but I'll hold off on doing so until I see if there are counterarguments. (For the record, I am a big fan of evolution and as anti-CS as anyone can be, but I do aim for a non-hostile article.) --Jere7my 07:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

We need to be clear that creation science isn't technically a "science" in the usual sense. This is why it is "carefully named". I am not altogether pleased with the wording, but I'm not sure what an alternative could be. --ScienceApologist 17:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
In particular, this was supposed to replace the wording that creation science was actually a neologism. --ScienceApologist 17:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm...well, the article points out that mainstream science calls CS a pseudoscience in the next sentence; is that not sufficient? (Honest question.) I've read (some of) the archives, and I know how much work went into hammering out this opening paragraph, but seeing the article for the first time my first reaction was, "Do we really know how carefully it was named, and do I need to see those two words before I'm told anything else about CS?"
My personal preference for the introduction would be to keep most of the words that are there, but move each basic concept to its own paragraph: 1) a simple definition of what CS is, 2) why its proponents adopted it, 3) why mainstream science rejects it. In other words, I would be fine waiting to tell people that it's a crock until the third paragraph; readers aren't so fickle that they can't wait a few lines before CS is put into the proper perspective. But I'm new here, and not about to start making waves of that magnitude.  :) --Jere7my 06:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I think your requests are resonable, and I would happily look at any edits you would plan to do to the openning. I'm not pleased with the current wording, but the problem is as I see it that creation "science" has the word science immediately in it -- for a reason. The "science" wording was designed to allow school districts (e.g. Arkansas) to teach creationism in science classrooms because, according to the proponents, creationism was a "real" science. This is why the NAS came out so strenuously against it: they viewed is as propaganda maneuvers on the part of people with religious political agenda toward the scientific process. What we need to do is let people know how calculated the coining of this term was and that it was invented as a subject only after creationists realized that people took anything with the appellation "science" more seriously. So how does one start off an article about a "made-up" subject that, in an NPOV way, lets the reader know its made-up? --ScienceApologist 14:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
My approach would be something like:
Creation science is an umbrella term for the attempts of creationists to reconcile the biblical account of creation with modern science. Supporters of the endeavor claim that extant scientific evidence best supports a creationist account of origins. As an organized movement, it is concentrated within the United States, primarily among evangelical Christian denominations which hold to biblical inerrancy.
Advocates of creation science dispute the scientific theory of the common descent of all life via biological evolution and argue in favor of creation biology. They also depart from the uniformitarian model of geology, in favor of flood geology, arguing for the historical accuracy of the Noahic flood. Some advocates have spent many years arguing for the inclusion of creation science in the science curriculum of U.S. public schools.
The mainstream scientific community dismisses creation science as a pseudoscience, as it generates no published results or field observations in mainstream peer reviewed journals (such as Nature). Instead, creation science literature generally consists of compilations of perceived weaknesses in current models of evolution and geology. Since creation science does not conform to the scientific method, its categorization as a science is a key issue in the creation-evolution controversy.
So, I start with (I hope!) a simple, plain, nonjudgmental definition, and assume that people will make up their own minds after reading all three paragraphs. This might just be my own philosophy, but I think we can trust readers to wait until the third paragraph before leaping to the conclusion that the word "science" in the name automatically makes it Science. By putting all of the damning words under the umbrella of "Mainstream science dismisses," we tell the people who accept mainstream science (hopefully most of them) the truth about CS while letting those who buy into CS go on believing what they want. In other words, we don't offer any opinion one way or the other, but we're letting people know that a huge and reputable authority dismisses CS, which I think is as dispassionately even-handed as I can get. (I also cleared up, I hope, the contradiction in the current introduction, which right now says that CS advocates both do and don't use the scientific method, and tidied up the mixed capitalization.) --Jere7my 05:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me, I tried to make the creationist association clear up front. Add it in! --ScienceApologist 18:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

? where located in article

Copy from article. Supporters of Young Earth creationism aruge the hermeneutical point that Genesis has the style of a historical narrative and none of the earmarks of Hebrew poetry [16].

Don't think this sentence was in the correct location in the article. FloNight talkSmall shamrock.png 06:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless I'm reading this completely wrong, this sentence shouldn't be in the Religious criticisms of creation science section of the article. It supports creation science, right? --FloNight talkSmall shamrock.png 06:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's consturctive ctiticism of the religious text to support creationism. Does that count?ColdSalad 02:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


Pleas inform why the article reproduced below and that I added in the dicussion list of the article " Creation science " in Wikipedia is constantly being deleted ?

Why am I being censored ?

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Talkpages are for discussing changes to the article, not for preaching. --ScienceApologist 20:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"Criticism of creationism" (SIC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Talkpages are for discussing changes to the article, not for preaching. --ScienceApologist 20:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Do not pretend my comments are "soapbox" or even a "preaching" but rather a critic to the point missed in the section "Criticism of creationism" of the article.

Are you suggesting that we include the below material in the article? Because none of this material conforms to the standards required for including it in Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 23:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see the user's talkpage for the suggested prose. --ScienceApologist 22:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting news article

re evolution •Jim62sch• 22:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from that article "While it’s looking more likely, it is not a sure thing..." rossnixon 01:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Nicely mined quote, Ross. It takes a lot to take things as wildly out-of-context as the creationist does. In particular, the question of the "sure thing" is whether a particular hominid evolved into another (not the fact of human evolution from hominids). --ScienceApologist 06:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The mainstream scientific community dismisses creation science as a pseudoscience

Shouldn't this be somehow qualified and perhaps stated differently? Many people in what probably gets termed "mainstream science" do not actively support evolution and instead believe in alternative theories. Many people in "mainstream science" don't believe in the idea of capatilism, does that mean we should call that or any other economic theory airy fairy rubbish?? Of course not. So why such strong words here against creation science right here in the first part. Mathmo 18:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Because its accurate. And I don't know what you mean by there being people in the mainstream that do not "support evolution and instead believe in alternative theories." That's basically false, see for example Project Steve for starters. JoshuaZ 18:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
False?? How can you say that? There are to scientist who don't believe in evolution as it currently stands. As for the number of them, which seems to be your problem. The mere point is that they do exist and hence the "mainstream scientific community" (and exactly how would you define that?? I imagine you would define it as those who believe in evolution etc...) do not as an entire whole believe that. Mathmo 21:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
When the vast majority of scientists have one view on the matter (and an even stronger majority if we just looked at the fields that matter) saying "mainstream community" is accurate. JoshuaZ 21:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


"Creationists however highlight the difference between empirical observational science (which they endorse provided it conforms to the scientific method) and historical science (the attempt to explain what has happened in the past by interpreting evidence found in the present such as fossils and rock strata). Creationists argue that when interpreting what has happened in the past, both secular scientists, and creationists interpret the 'evidence' within the framework of thier pre-existing belief system or worldview ie.naturalism or Special creation. The evidence is the same but the interpretation of it differs. Creationist interpretations of scientific evidence are often excluded from secular scientific Journals because they are seen to be biased and shaped by an underlying faith in a supernatural creator. Most creationists would not deny this but would argue that their secular counterparts are no less biased and interpret the same evidence according to their pre-existant worldview and faith in naturalism. Creationists claim that their arguments and interpretations are generally not published in secular journals because they oppose the ruling paradigm of the day (naturalism). For this reason creationist material is generally published in separate peer reviewed creationist journals such as the Australian publication 'Journal of Creation'. While the evolution/creation argument is an emotive one between the two opposing sides, many creationists (who are often as equally qualified in their scientific disciplines as their secular counterparts) regulaly publish in secular journals on other issues. Secular scientists argue that the issue of creation verses evolution is one of faith verses science. Creationists argue that as the study of origins (including evolution) is 'historical' science not 'observational' science, it is an issue of faith verses faith." Don't think you should have simply reverted it, neither was what you replaced it with NPOV. Although it is perhaps a little lengthy as it stands now, or just be placed in a different use. However that can fixed. Not now, I need to leave now for wellington for the week. Perhaps later. Mathmo 21:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Not all creationists even make these arguments, and to add various extra creationist arguments here would be a serious problem with NPOV in particular an issue of undue weight. Furthermore, I'd like to see one good citation showing that creationists are shut out of journals. You won't find one other than various creationists making the claim without any hard evidence (example: I have a friend who is an editor for a bio journal, and they basically get zero creationist submissions) and given that many, if not most of the scientists who accept evolution are religious, it is POV to label them "secular scientists." Those issues are just for starters. JoshuaZ 21:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

GA Removal

I'm speeding removing this article from GA. The refrencing is a complete mess, I can't tell the random links from the footnotes and the magazine cover has nothing to do with the article basiclly and the article doesn't describe the magazine at all period so it does not qualify for fair-use so that equals copyvio. And the article currently has an history of edit wars so it's not stable. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

How can you possibly think the magazine cover has nothing to do with the article?? More like everything to do with the article! (ok that was obviously a slight exageration! :p Still, it is clearly something very stongly related to the article and should be in some way mentioned/included) This is one of the major magazines published for the public by people in the creation sciences. So please justify your reasoning as to how this is not at all related to the article as you claim. Mathmo 12:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The only way the magazine cover is fair use is that it has to be in a article about the magazine, or described in detail in this article, which it isn't Jaranda wat's sup 15:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Jaranda) The fair use policy is strict, and I have trouble seeing how this image meets it. If one contacted CMI/AiG (whichever one currently has the copyright) they might be willing to release the image. We then have the problem that I'm not sure the image really adds anything to the article. JoshuaZ 15:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Category Pseudoscience

I put this article in the correct catagory, as it does not practice the scientific method and is without scientific foundation.

Very true, but the entire category of Creation science is listed under pseudoscience so that might be redundant. That said is there any reason not to have tags on the individual pages? Jefffire 20:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
As it happens someone was trying to remove the pseudoscience category from category:intelligent design and the talk page there has a plaintive note trying to get rid of such double categorisation, as pseudoscience is overcrowded! ...dave souza, talk 21:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Silly sentences in the article

Creationism, the belief in a created universe, was originally based purely on theology.

  • On what historical basis do we make this silly claim? How do you know what creationism was originally based on, since you weren't there?
  • What does it mean for creationism to be based purely on theology? Theology tells us things about God. Creationism tells us God did certain things. If anything, creationism is an aspect of theology. Ungtss 21:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Creationism is now based on both theology and scientific discovery. By that I mean that scientific discoveries keep revealing more and more incredible things about living systems - and no alternative theory in the last 150 years has yet offered a compelling alternative. rossnixon 01:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Ross: Bingo.
Joshua: Thank you for at least fixing that silly sentence.
Nnp: Your deletion of a mass of factual, npov information was unexplained and unjustified. Do you always delete factual information without deigning to explain yourself? Ungtss 02:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Ethnocentrism" and the doctrine of creation

There is a problem in claiming a universalist umbrella for creation theology. In particular, without adequate citation to a comparative religion text, it isn't at all clear that the various religions and mythologies of the world are actually adhering to a particular doctrine that we descirbe and ascribe by means of the via negativa to Christianity in particular. The fact of the matter is that with the possible exception of a few fringe Islamic and Jewish fundamentalists, there are very few people from religions other than Christianity that would see their religions as progenitors of creation science. It's a novel and original stance to claim a universalist creation ethos (or mythos) is the historical precursor to creation science. While we have citations for Christianity's doctrine of creation, we don't have any citations for a doctrinal position from most of the other religions listed by Ungtss. --ScienceApologist 08:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Issues in creation science

Metaphysical Presuppositions

The metaphysical presuppositions and consequences are some of the most controversial foundational issues. Regrouped sections and added balancing positions to make this more NPOV.

Limits to Science

Deleted pejorative comment on Gish. Turned this into section on Limits of Science. Provided balancing references that other scientists and mathematicians also hold that there are primary limits to the scientific method. e.g. Yockey holds that it is impossible to show how abiogenesis occurred for lack of data and the mathematics involved.

Yockey is a typically poor source that creationists rely on because he is skeptical about inductive science being trained in mathematical determinism. He's not considered a good resource in this area. --ScienceApologist 20:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I would have to agree with the anon editor above that the term quote mining is quite pejorative in this sense. Yockey may not be a good source, but he is neither being misquoted nor contradictory in his statements. I move for a more neutral statement. El Cubano 22:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Yockey is only brought up in the context of abiogenesis as a quote mine technique. If you want to remove Yockey all together, that's fine with me. Actually, the whole section is somewhat dubious. --ScienceApologist 22:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I can agree with that. The section reads poorly and doesn't seem to add much to the article. El Cubano 22:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

Claiming Intelligent Design is Creation Science is considered pejorative by practioners of both. ID seeks to establish empirical methods to identify intelligent causes that are applicable to current, historical and origin applications. Corrected references and added balancing comments. DLH 14:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Edited formatting. -- Ec5618 15:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
To ScienceAppologist
do not revert and add pejorative language over what you do not know. Yockey dedicates major sectionsn to this point. Go and read Yocky before commenting further.

I rearranged and added further Yockey references to emphasize this foundational unknowability.

"Some scientists try to discover how life originated (abiogenesis). Information scientist Hubert Yockey states ". . . some things are impossible, unknowable, and undecidable even in mathematics."[2] Consequently Yockey "the process of the origin of life is possible but unknowable," based on fundamental lack of data and stochastic processes involved. i.e., ". . .it is not deterministic but, rather, it is undecidable that life would inevitably arise spontaneously from nonliving matter on young planets "sufficiently similar to Earth . . ." [3] He emphasises "Thus, the process of the origin of life is possible but unknowable.[4]" DLH 15:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Please don't change the meaning of sentences, without prior discussion. -- Ec5618 15:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Article lacks neutral view

This article is filled with heavy criticism against Creation Science, more so than necessary. It is obvious that it was butchered by somebody who is against it, and therefore I, a member of Wikipedia for over a year, will put up a POV tag until this article is fixed. If it is removed, it should be reverted immediately. Karatenerd 07:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are still using the template wrongly. It is not to be used by a single editor who feels the article warrants attention; it is to be used when several editors disagree on the talk page. If we allow any editor to add the template, we would soon be looking at a flood of templates.
Now, please specify your peeves. Please know that a lot of effort has gone into this article, by, for example, making sure that all criticism is attributed. And, as the WP:NPOV policy specifically urges us to make clear that the point of view of the majority is given greater weight that the point of view of the minority, there is undoubtedly going to be more criticism than laudation.
Again, please specify your peeves, as we need to know what we should be addressing. I will remove the template, as we can surely discuss the issue here. We can put the warning up when we run into verifiable point of view problems. Thank you. -- Ec5618 09:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Speed of light

Cut from article:

publications from the university of Rochester have shown that light speed can be slowed down to 38 miles per hour using super dence matter or the speed of light can bee increase by 100 fold.

This info should go into the Speed of light article first, if you can provide a valid source and a cogent summary. --Uncle Ed 14:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)